PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

N Babul

Publications and source records attributed to N Babul.

26 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1993

Using memory for pain in analgesic research.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of pain intensity recall at 24 and 48 hours as a substitute for hourly pain assessments in repeated-dose analgesic studies. SETTING: Orthopedic unit of an acute care teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-four patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament, using the patellar tendon, who were participating in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group analgesic study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients rated their pain intensity every hour (while awake) for 48 hours and their recall of worst, least, and usual pain intensity at 24 and 48 hours using a visual analog scale (VAS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This study examined the relationship between recall of worst, least, and usual pain intensity at 24 and 48 hours and the experienced maximum, minimum, and mean pain intensity VAS scores obtained from hourly assessments over the 0-24- and 0-48-hour periods, respectively. The significance of differences between recalled and experienced pain intensity variables was assessed. RESULTS: Worst, least, and usual pain recall at 24 and 48 hours were highly correlated with experienced maximum, minimum, and mean pain from hourly reports, respectively, over the 0-24- and 0-48-hour periods (Pearson correlation coefficients, r = 0.80-0.89, p < 0.0001). Among the three pain recall variables, usual pain showed the highest correlation with hourly measurements. There were no significant differences between recalled pain and the corresponding measures of pain from the hourly VAS scores, except in the case of 48-hour recall of worst pain (Student's t-test, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The close agreement between actual pain experience and recall of pain provides support for the use of pain recall in assessing analgesic efficacy in clinical trials.

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed1993

Evaluation and use of opioid analgesics in pediatric cancer pain.

Morphine is the preferred opioid analgesic in pediatric cancer pain due to extensive clinical experience with it, significant pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data following oral and parenteral administration, global availability, and the development of controlled-release formulations. Randomized clinical trials are needed to fully evaluate the pharmacokinetics, dose equivalence, clinical efficacy, and safety of other opioid analgesics in cancer pain. Clinical trials are also needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant analgesics in children, including tricyclic antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and antiarrhythmics for neuropathic pain and corticosteroids and diphosphonates for bone pain. Unfortunately, the number of children with cancer pain and stable analgesic requirements is usually not large enough to support well-controlled clinical trials at a single institution. Consequently, multicentre and perhaps multinational efforts are necessary to fully evaluate opioid pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and dosage guidelines in children with cancer.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1992

Pharmacokinetics of two novel rectal controlled-release morphine formulations.

Administration of morphine by the oral route is not possible in cancer patients who are unable to swallow or are intolerant of oral morphine. Thus, there is a need for reliable alternate routes of drug administration. We compared the bioavailability of two prototype 30-mg morphine sulfate controlled-release suppository formulations (high and low viscosity) with 30-mg oral controlled-release morphine sulfate tablets in a 14-subject single-dose randomized, three-way crossover study. Venous blood samples were obtained immediately prior to and for 24 hr following each dose. Morphine concentrations were determined by radioimmunoassay. Compared with oral controlled-release morphine, the high- and low-viscosity suppository formulations had significantly greater bioavailability (AUC0-24 72.7 +/- 13.2 for the oral preparation versus 98.6 +/- 35.7 and 105.8 +/- 37.3 ng.hr/mL for the suppositories, respectively, P < 0.05), later peak concentration (tmax 2.3 +/- 0.8 versus 3.1 +/- 2.3 and 5.0 +/- 1.5 hr, respectively, P < 0.05), and longer half-value duration (4.3 +/- 1.6 versus 10.4 +/- 5.5 and 9.5 +/- 4.3 hr, respectively, P < 0.05). Peak concentration for the high-viscosity suppository formulation (Cmax 7.75 +/- 2.66 ng/mL) was significantly lower than the low-viscosity suppository (Cmax 9.23 +/- 2.85 ng/mL) and the oral tablet (Cmax 10.4 +/- 2.78 ng/mL) formulations (P < 0.05). The increased bioavailability observed with the two controlled-release suppositories may be the result of partial avoidance of hepatic biotransformation with rectal administration.

Administration, Rectal↗
PubMed1988

Teicoplanin: a new glycopeptide antibiotic complex.

The chemistry, microbiology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and adverse effect profile of teicoplanin are reviewed and, where appropriate, compared with vancomycin. Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide antibiotic with potent bactericidal activity against a wide variety of aerobic and anaerobic gram-positive bacteria. In contrast to the structurally related vancomycin, teicoplanin has a prolonged elimination half-life of approximately 60 hours and it may be safely administered by the intramuscular route. Adverse effects of teicoplanin include ototoxicity, nephrotoxicity, skin rash, eosinophilia, neutropenia, and transient elevation of serum aminotransferases. Teicoplanin may be beneficial as an alternative to vancomycin for patients with poor vascular access and in those requiring long-term outpatient therapy. The role of teicoplanin in the treatment and prophylaxis of gram-positive infections will ultimately depend on its unfolding safety and efficacy profile.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Serum theophylline profile with once-daily theophylline (Uniphyl) following conversion from intravenous theophylline in adult asthmatic patients.

Although guidelines are available for conversion from intravenous (IV) theophylline to twice-daily, oral, controlled-release theophylline, the optimal method for conversion to Uniphyl, a chronotherapeutically formulated, once-daily theophylline preparation, has not been previously evaluated. The present study was designed to prospectively evaluate a method for converting patients from IV theophylline to Uniphyl, to formulate simple, practical dosage recommendations for use in clinical practice. Ten patients with acute exacerbation of asthma receiving IV theophylline for > or = 48 hours and with steady state serum theophylline concentrations (STCs) between 4.5 and 15.5 mg/L (25 and 86 mumol/L) were enrolled into the study. Patients with STCs > or = 4.5 and < 12 mg/L (> or = 25 and < 66 mumol/L) and those with STCs > or = 12 and < or = 15.5 mg/L (> or = 66 and < or = 86 mumol/L) received their first Uniphyl dose immediately following termination of IV theophylline (No Time Lapse [NTL] group) and after a 4-hour delay (Time Lapse [TL] group), respectively. The differences in the area under the curve values between Uniphyl dosing and IV theophylline were 11% in the NTL group (1214.6 +/- 247.9 mumol/h.L-1 vs 1370.4 +/- 148.1 mumol/h.L-1, 95% confidence interval, 74% to 103%; P = 0.068) and 10% in the TL group (1959.4 +/- 165.1 mumol/h.L-1 vs 1784.6 +/- 119.4 mumol/h.L-1, 95% confidence interval, 103% to 117%; P = 0.013).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Administration, Oral↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Effects of cimetidine and ranitidine on the pharmacokinetics of a chronotherapeutically formulated once-daily theophylline preparation (Uniphyl).

The effects of cimetidine and ranitidine on the steady-state pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of a chronotherapeutically formulated (CTF), once-daily theophylline preparation (Uniphyl) were evaluated in 12 adult patients with asthma. In this randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover study, patients received a fixed dose of CTF-theophylline and concurrent cimetidine, ranitidine, or placebo for a period of 7 days each. Asthma symptoms, drug side effects, and beta 2-agonist inhaler use were recorded daily. Venous blood sampling for pharmacokinetic assessment was done over a complete dosing interval on day 7 of each phase. Coadministration of cimetidine, but not ranitidine, was associated with a significant decrease in the apparent oral clearance of theophylline (2.47 +/- 0.91 vs 1.85 +/- 0.63 L/hr; P = 0.004) and increases in the theophylline area under the curve (233.48 +/- 58.99 vs 307.43 +/- 79.07 mg/L/hr; P = 0.003), peak concentration (13.2 +/- 2.8 vs 16.7 +/- 3.7 mg/L; P = 0.002), and trough concentration (6.4 +/- 2.5 vs 9.0 +/- 3.0 mg/L; P = 0.008). Despite the changes in theophylline pharmacokinetic parameters during cimetidine treatment, no significant differences in asthma symptom scores or side effects were seen when once-daily CTF-theophylline was administered concomitantly with cimetidine, ranitidine, or placebo.

Adult↗